When Ottawa Valley farmer Geri Kamenz heard that Agriculture Canada was launching a review of the functioning and goals of its science and research branch, his reaction was swift.
“Everybody I’ve talked to would support the idea of a review. I think this is overdue,” said the chair of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture environment and sustainable development committee that looks at research as part of its mandate.
Federal agriculture minister Andy Mitchell announced on June 23 a “review of science priorities” along with a pledge that four research office closings announced in the February budget will be delayed until the review is complete.
Read Also
Carberry field day looks for agriculture solutions
Manitoba farmers explored research solutions for resilient crops, perpetual agronomic issues and new kinds of agricultural products at a field day at the Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre in Carberry on Aug. 6.
It is at least a stay-of-execution for the research sites at Winnipeg, Nappan, N.S., St. Johns, Nfld., and Kapuskasing, Ont.
Mitchell said he has not set a timetable for the review nor decided who will lead it.
“I know what I want to do and I will need advice on how long it will take to get that done,” he said. “We don’t want to put an artificial time limit on it and then find we can’t get our work done in that time. On the other hand, I don’t want to have a review hanging out there (without a deadline).”
He said the review of spending, priorities and organization of the research effort will involve consultations with federal researchers, universities, the provinces and industry.
“We obviously want to invest more into science,” Mitchell told reporters outside the House of Commons.
“We also want to make sure that our science is done in a way that reflects the challenges that we have in the 21st century. I think it makes good sense to take a look at our programming, to do it in conjunction with those that are impacted by it and to do it on a comprehensive and a national basis, and so that’s what we launched today.”
He said research funding will not be cut and present programming will be maintained at current levels in all provinces while ways will be found to cut overhead costs with the savings put back into research.
“It is not about us trying to save money,” said Mitchell.
“It is about us trying to make ourselves more effective.”
The announcement of the first comprehensive review of the government research program in decades comes as opposition MPs and critics of the government complain of low morale, a lack of direction and crumbling infrastructure in the program.
During the past decade, a number of government decisions have affected Agriculture Canada research.
The 1995 deficit-fighting budget drastically slashed research funding and shortly after, the government announced creation of the matching investment initiative that aimed to fill the public dollar gap by attracting more private money.
Critics of the initiative have said it biases government research to private sector, short-term profitability goals at the expense of long-term basic
research.
As well, concerns about a lack of central control and planning over the department led former deputy minister Samy Watson to establish national objectives, while reducing the ability of regional and station managers to plan regional or local projects.
Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson has argued this leaves research stations and regional researchers unclear of where they fit into national plans and unable to respond to regional concerns and conditions.
Meanwhile, the environmental lobby has criticized Agriculture Canada for spending money on research into genetically modified crops, often in conjunction with private companies.
“There certainly is no lack of issues to raise,” said Kemenz from his Spencerville, Ont., farm.”I think a key is to find some efficiencies in the system, to make sure the system is streamlined to make sure available dollars go where they can do the most good. The wording of the science leg of the APF (agricultural policy framework) certainly lacks clarity on where the system is heading.”
